Subject:
|
Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:07:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
289 times
|
| |
|
|
> Well, stipulating that I don't much care what it means :-),
> but for the sake of the discussion, no: go ahead and
> expand on the idea [of becoming "one flesh"].
>
> Kevin
Kevin,
I ask only because if you have disagreements that constitute such a "wide
[moral] gulf," and are willing to lay down statements such as "there's no
non-religious reason [by this I take you to mean 'rational']...," perhaps it
would be fitting to understand the opposing position. ;-)
In any case, I appreciate your offer to continue, and I realize that you
have an investment in a lifestyle that stands in opposition to what I hope
to articulate below, so it is all the more significant an offer on your
part.
What Jesus is talking about in Matthew 19 is this: that (in the words of
philosopher Germain Grisez), "Though a male and female are complete
individuals with respect to other functions-for example, nutrition,
sensation, and locomotion-with respect to reproduction they are only
potential parts of a mated pair, which is the complete organism capable of
reproducing sexually." One man and one woman effectively become "one
flesh" - one biological organism - in the act of intercourse by forming a
single reproductive principle.
Traditional marriage involves the notion of a union between persons on a
number of levels: emotional, dispositional, spiritual, and physical. Sexual
intercourse is referred to as the consummation of the "marriage" - the
"bringing together" of individuals - precisely because it uniquely completes
the union by merging male and female interpersonally in their bodily
aspects. Additionally, there is a correspondence to be found (quite
literally) where children result from the bodily union of spouses: "children
embody the 'wedding' of the couples by combining [in] themselves the
features of both parents." [Hadley Arkes]
Now let me turn more specifically to your concerns of (Judeo-) Christian
morality. C.S. Lewis may be helpful here:
---
The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who
indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all
the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up
the total union. [This] attitude does not mean that there is anything wrong
about sexual pleasure, any more than about the pleasure of eating. It means
that you must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any
more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without swallowing
and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again. [Mere
Christianity (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996): 96-97]
---
Polygamy (or some variation thereof), homosexuality, and other behaviors are
viewed as immoral because they are deviations from the norm of marriage;
they drive a wedge between the different aspects involved in the personal
unity of marriage, and end up exploiting those aspects. In fact, a number
of individuals have argued against homosexuality on the grounds that it
opens the door to polygamy. Two persons - one male and one female - not
one, and not three (or more), can procreate a child. Take away the
reproductive principle grounding marriage (as homosexuality does) and you
also dissolve the exclusivity of marriage (as polygamy does).
More directly, homosexuality may be understood as the alternate extreme from
rape. Rape is a violation of other unities (emotional and dispositional,
though not bodily) that marriage enjoins because it occurs without the
consent of the individual. Homosexual relationships may seek to fulfill
those unities, but forsake the final (consummating) unity of the bodily
aspects of the individuals involved - oddly, in the very aspects directly
involved in the acts in question. They can never be completed as
individuals through homosexual acts (although I think they are intuitively
seeking out that completion). Additionally, I would argue that completion
as individuals in the other aspects of their lives (emotional,
dispositional, spiritual) may not be available to them in principle if the
bodily aspect is any indication of the complimentarity of males and females
in other aspects.
Finally, the family is a unique moral and biological community connected by
those principles securing the good of marriage. A man and wife are unified
themselves through exclusive commitment and reproductive principle, and are
through the embracing of that unity also connected to their children.
The reasoning behind the sexual morality that Christianity embraces is
broadly religious, that's true (and there are other theological points that
could be discussed here). But so, I would argue, is any objective morality
(as some participants of this board, on the other side of the debate, have
aptly pointed out). "One flesh" communion - as a guide to sexual morality -
is rationally available, however, apart from its more narrow ties to
particular religious traditions. It is evident enough that civilizations
across history have recognized some form of marriage (even favoring
monogamous heterosexual marriage) and many have outright rejected deviations
from that standard.
Again, I realize that we may have profound disagreements on this subject,
and I don't present what I have as a personal attack of any kind; rather, my
hope is that we can understand one another better and encourage informed
dialogue. One thing I didn't address directly is sex outside of marriage,
but perhaps I can do that in a subsequent post. Thanks for your patience.
Take care,
Steve
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| (...) Does this mean that you beleive that a person who is, for whatever reason, infertile should never seek out the other kinds of completion involved in a romantic/sexual union with a member of the opposite sex? Your reasoning for finding (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| Hi Steve, That was interesting, and it certainly makes a change from Leviticus and the crimes of Sodom :-). However, I don't think it tells me anything that makes me more sympathetic to the Christian POV on sexual morality, or changes my own views. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| (...) So, what you are saying is that rape cannot exist within a marrage? Is this part of what you are trying to say? That a woman should be no more than a hole for a man? In spite of 50 years or more of court (and moral) decisions? I _dislike_ that (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) means (...) concept - (...) ago (...) Well, stipulating that I don't much care what it means :-), but for the sake of the discussion, no: go ahead and expand on the idea. Kevin (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
